The company will partner with Planetary Resources in the small satellite market.

Planetary Resources and Virgin Galactic announced a new partnership Wednesday to launch a small swarm of telescopes aboard a new launcher from Virgin.

Virgin's new launcher is to be called LauncherOne. It appears to leverage some of the hardware already developed for SpaceShipTwo, Virgin's suborbital tourist vehicle. Like SpaceShipTwo, the new rocket rides up underneath Virgin's big carrier aircraft, WhiteKnightTwo, to about 50,000 feet. After release, the rocket drops for approximately four seconds before the first stage ignites. After the first stage burns out, a second stage takes the satellite to orbit.

Virgin hopes to provide fresh competition in the small launch market and give Planetary Resources a cheaper way to launch their spacecraft. "I believe this vehicle will create a long overdue shake-up of the whole satellite industry, disrupting current norms and limitations in exactly the way that SpaceShipTwo has for human space travel and space-based science research," Richard Branson said at this week's Farnborough Air Show. He went on to claim that LauncherOne has the largest initial order book of any new launch vehicle in history.

These prices are insane!

After Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne won the first X-Prize in 2004, Virgin Galactic and Burt Rutan partnered in forming a new spaceship company creatively entitled The Spaceship Company. TSC, as it is more often known, was put in charge of developing the various technologies necessary for SpaceShipTwo. TSC would also manufacture spacecraft and sell them not only to Virgin Galactic but other customers.

Since then, TSC has been quietly working on several projects. LauncherOne appeared in the press as early as 2008, but four years have been required to assemble all the pieces. The company is working on a second and third WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft, two for Virgin and one for Scaled Composites, Burt Rutan's aerospace company. And of course, there's SpaceShipTwo.

Over the last several years, a strong demand has developed for getting small satellites (under 1000 pounds) to orbit more cheaply. Satellite manufacturers can mass-produce small satellites, bringing the costs down and expanding the satellite market. Customers want small satellites because they're cheaper to launch, and they can now accomplish the same task that required a very large satellite a few years ago.

Earth observation companies have been popping up to launch constellations much like the communications constellations that began going up a decade ago. And of course there's Planetary Resources, which wants to launch a constellation of space telescopes that looks outward from Earth in order to map resources on near-Earth asteroids.

Although the satellites are waiting, the cost of launching them has remained high. Launch cost on a rideshared rocket (wherein they piggyback along with several other satellites) remains at around $10M. Launch aboard a dedicated vehicle like Orbital Sciences' struggling Pegasus XL rocket runs about twice that. Pegasus can launch up to 980 pounds to LEO. While it's one of the cheapest dedicated launchers, it's also one of the most expensive on a per pound basis, at about $20,000.

LauncherOne seems to be targeting the bottom half of Pegasus-sized payloads, but they quote prices "below $10M" in their press release. This could give the market a much-needed shot in the arm, assuming Orbital Sciences would be able to both lower its prices and make a profit. Including other services or a satellite platform for that price might sweeten the deal.

Why launch a rocket from an airplane?

A typical communications satellite orbits the Earth at about 500 miles. The WhiteKnightTwo's launching altitude of 50,000 feet is less than 9 1/2 miles, or about two percent of the trip. Designing and building a large aircraft doesn't seem like a very cost-effective method to launch a rocket. But there are still lots of good reasons to do it that way.

One of them is that using launch ranges like Wallops (in Virginia) or Kennedy is extremely expensive, with a plethora of tight restrictions and long delays. Air launching allows users to avoid these hassles. Air launches can also be done from almost any place that has a runway. It also means the WhiteKnightTwo can, in theory, fly to where the satellite is, even if it's in another country, and a launch can take place on very short notice.

The carrier aircraft can be pointed in any direction, whether toward a horizon, toward a pole, or neither. That means a large variety of orbits are available no matter where the satellite is launched.

The bottom line is that air launches can save a lot of money on range costs and make the whole business more flexible. The downside is that rockets are extremely heavy when they're loaded with propellants, so unless we build giant aircraft, air launches are limited to small rockets designed to launch small satellites.

Now with instant customers!

The new vehicle already has no shortage of customers waiting to launch. They included GeoOptics, SpaceFlight Inc., Skybox Imaging, and Planetary Resources. Sierra Nevada Space Systems (producer of Dream Chaser) and Surrey Satellite Technology will create specialized designs for LauncherOne.

Virgin had other significant announcements at Farnborough. SpaceShipTwo's major components have all now been qualified, meaning that the craft can be tested and could be ready for passengers some time next year. Fully 529 deposits have been taken.

Virgin also revealed that LauncherOne's engines burn liquid oxygen with kerosene, possibly meaning that TSC has developed a new engine capable of providing the foundation for even more vehicles. According to an article at Aviation Week, the new liquid-fueled engine will eventually replace the hybrid engine currently used on SpaceShipTwo. That engine has been heavily played up on Virgin's website, but it's also rumored to be the reason for SpaceShipTwo's nine-year development time.

Much of the new development is being funded by Aabar Investments, an Abu Dhabi-based investment firm owned by International Petroleum Investment Company, which is in turn owned by the government of United Arab Emirates. Former Spaceport America director Steve Landeene has left New Mexico to build a new spaceport in Abu Dhabi, and the country is putting significant effort and funding toward becoming a player in space development. Abu Dhabi also holds exclusive regional rights to Virgin launches. Virgin founder Richard Branson pointed effusively to Aabar, which owns just over a third of Virgin Galactic, as a major reason the company is able to move forward.

Branson was visibly brimming with anticipation in his address at Farnborough. "As you can imagine, that immediately gets me thinking about LauncherTwo, SpaceShipThree, and who knows… Space Station Alpha. But one step at a time, LauncherOne is exciting enough for today." The introductory video on the Virgin Galactic website ends with yet another catchy Branson Virgin play. "We're making it happen because space is Virgin territory!"

This explains much. It wasn't a wild guess that the rocket engines, already a cause of accident, were the delay as Rutan knows his aerodynamics. So they had to get an economical save from other investors.

The LauncherOne isn't a huge market changer, but it will further spread out investment cost in the WhiteKnightTwo based launcher technology. SpaceX will likely undercut them when they get their regular huge satellite and DragonLab missions going, orbiting small satellites riding in the Dragon trunk. But they can only launch so much and in orbits constrained by the main mission.

The author is missing some other important benefits. First, two percent of the height might mean about ten percent of the fuel, since you also don't have to have the rocket lift the fuel needed to lift that two percent mass to that height.Second, the first two percent of the height is through the densest part of the atmosphere, so there's extra fuel cost flying through that part of the trip. Third, by launching at about 600 miles per hour in the right direction, you save fuel accelerating the whole mass of the rocket, not only in lifting it. Finally, the plane can fly to an area closer to the equator, where the rotational speed of earth brings the rocket an extra 2000 Kmph closer to escape speed (in essence, getting to lift off at 3000Kmph whereas a more continental liftoff in the central US would lift off at 1000Kmph). In all, they probably save thirty to forty percent of the fuel on the rocket, and replace it with a lower amount of more efficient and cheaper fuel for an airplane. Looks like a good deal to me.

The author is missing some other important benefits. First, two percent of the height might mean about ten percent of the fuel, since you also don't have to have the rocket lift the fuel needed to lift that two percent mass to that height.Second, the first two percent of the height is through the densest part of the atmosphere, so there's extra fuel cost flying through that part of the trip. Third, by launching at about 600 miles per hour in the right direction, you save fuel accelerating the whole mass of the rocket, not only in lifting it. Finally, the plane can fly to an area closer to the equator, where the rotational speed of earth brings the rocket an extra 2000 Kmph closer to escape speed (in essence, getting to lift off at 3000Kmph whereas a more continental liftoff in the central US would lift off at 1000Kmph). In all, they probably save thirty to forty percent of the fuel on the rocket, and replace it with a lower amount of more efficient and cheaper fuel for an airplane. Looks like a good deal to me.

+++

I always thought that the further away from earth the rocket was the easier the launch due to less gravity and less fuel needed which in turn means the rocket can be lighter which means less fuel again, add this to the equatorial savings and it makes the launch of the rockets much much easier and cheaper.

A bit off topic but given the caliber of readers here maybe someone can answer this. Given that the price of launching materials into space is coming down, some screwball ideas are likely to come to fruition during our lifetime. My question is this: At what point, if someone were to try to break the skydiving world record, would reentry issues become a problem? I understand that Felix Baumgartner is going to try to attempt to break Joe Kittinger's 1960s record of 102,000 feet by attempting 120,000', but where would the cutoff point of height be?

Orbital velocity is too high. So, unless you come up with a non-atmospheric method of braking, basically it will be at the atmospheric limit. That, or you bring your own heat shield while waiting in your vacuum suit.

I always thought that the further away from earth the rocket was the easier the launch due to less gravity...

Gravity does weaken as you move farther away from the planet, but it's insignificant in this context. Gravity at 40,000 feet is 99.5% of gravity at sea level. Remember that the radius of Earth is nearly 21,000,000 feet. Adding another 40,000 to that is just 0.02%.

Orbital velocity is too high. So, unless you come up with a non-atmospheric method of braking, basically it will be at the atmospheric limit. That, or you bring your own heat shield while waiting in your vacuum suit.

Thanks for the reply. Orbital velocity is really, and I'm not an aeronautical engineer by any means, is a function of horizontal speed. It's a tangential to the curvature of the Earth. That's why spacecraft have to perform burns 180 degrees out from their flight path in order to slow down in order to deorbit. I guess what I'm asking is at what height will I not need to strap a heat shield to my ass in order to not burn up.

I have no doubt that the launching aircraft has been thoroughly engineered. Just looking at it, though, makes me cringe, as I can't help but imagine all sorts of torsional things going on. It's really two full-sized airplanes connected by a single wing that appears not all that rotationally stiff. Imagine the elevators on the two airplanes' tails pointing different ways, causing one airplane to point up and the other to point down (even slightly). Or imagine some sort of oscillation building up.

As I said, I'm sure this has been well thought out -- it's my intuition that's not in line with reality.

Orbital velocity is too high. So, unless you come up with a non-atmospheric method of braking, basically it will be at the atmospheric limit. That, or you bring your own heat shield while waiting in your vacuum suit.

Thanks for the reply. Orbital velocity is really, and I'm not an aeronautical engineer by any means, is a function of horizontal speed. It's a tangential to the curvature of the Earth. That's why spacecraft have to perform burns 180 degrees out from their flight path in order to slow down in order to deorbit. I guess what I'm asking is at what height will I not need to strap a heat shield to my ass in order to not burn up.

Any, it just depends on your starting velocity, which is then determined by your lauching methods. If you're at LEO heights, but NOT in orbital velocity (0 relative ground velocity), you'll freefall from that height without needing heat shielding.

The author is missing some other important benefits. First, two percent of the height might mean about ten percent of the fuel, since you also don't have to have the rocket lift the fuel needed to lift that two percent mass to that height.Second, the first two percent of the height is through the densest part of the atmosphere, so there's extra fuel cost flying through that part of the trip. Third, by launching at about 600 miles per hour in the right direction, you save fuel accelerating the whole mass of the rocket, not only in lifting it. Finally, the plane can fly to an area closer to the equator, where the rotational speed of earth brings the rocket an extra 2000 Kmph closer to escape speed (in essence, getting to lift off at 3000Kmph whereas a more continental liftoff in the central US would lift off at 1000Kmph). In all, they probably save thirty to forty percent of the fuel on the rocket, and replace it with a lower amount of more efficient and cheaper fuel for an airplane. Looks like a good deal to me.

The hardest part of rocketry is getting the vehicle off the ground. Second hardest part is maintaining appropriate velocity and direction.

Glad you made this comment, I was thinking that should've been added to the article. Ground launches typically require a 1st stage just to get you off the ground. That stage adds complexity, more weight, and more cost. Drop launches have their own complexities and risks, but it's a worthwhile trade for smaller cargo.

The author is missing some other important benefits. First, two percent of the height might mean about ten percent of the fuel, since you also don't have to have the rocket lift the fuel needed to lift that two percent mass to that height.Second, the first two percent of the height is through the densest part of the atmosphere, so there's extra fuel cost flying through that part of the trip. Third, by launching at about 600 miles per hour in the right direction, you save fuel accelerating the whole mass of the rocket, not only in lifting it. Finally, the plane can fly to an area closer to the equator, where the rotational speed of earth brings the rocket an extra 2000 Kmph closer to escape speed (in essence, getting to lift off at 3000Kmph whereas a more continental liftoff in the central US would lift off at 1000Kmph). In all, they probably save thirty to forty percent of the fuel on the rocket, and replace it with a lower amount of more efficient and cheaper fuel for an airplane. Looks like a good deal to me.

The hardest part of rocketry is getting the vehicle off the ground. Second hardest part is maintaining appropriate velocity and direction.

Glad you made this comment, I was thinking that should've been added to the article. Ground launches typically require a 1st stage just to get you off the ground. That stage adds complexity, more weight, and more cost. Drop launches have their own complexities and risks, but it's a worthwhile trade for smaller cargo.

Forgive me for being glib, however I can't help but wonder what it would cost to launch all members of the U.S. House & Senate to an altitude that, when combined with a VERY slowly degrading orbit, would be sufficient to keep them out of our hair for a good long while.

I don't know what the average elected representative weighs, or how to calculate for such monstrous payloads of crap, offset of course, by extraordinary volumes of lighter-than-air gasses. Even at $10 million (X-Representatives + Y-Senators), it seems as though it would be a bargain with that factor times 2.

I'll chip in a couple of bucks; anybody else up for a go at it? (Or let's say we just scrub a couple dozen F35s, we all go out for coffee & doughnuts afterward, & we call it even.)

Orbital velocity is too high. So, unless you come up with a non-atmospheric method of braking, basically it will be at the atmospheric limit. That, or you bring your own heat shield while waiting in your vacuum suit.

Thanks for the reply. Orbital velocity is really, and I'm not an aeronautical engineer by any means, is a function of horizontal speed. It's a tangential to the curvature of the Earth. That's why spacecraft have to perform burns 180 degrees out from their flight path in order to slow down in order to deorbit. I guess what I'm asking is at what height will I not need to strap a heat shield to my ass in order to not burn up.

Any, it just depends on your starting velocity, which is then determined by your lauching methods. If you're at LEO heights, but NOT in orbital velocity (0 relative ground velocity), you'll freefall from that height without needing heat shielding.

Not exactly correct. Even assuming that you could cancel your orbital speed and fall straight down (which would require thrust to cancel 17000 mph along the orbital path, plus a thrust vector at 90 degrees from the orbital path to maintain altitude), from a LEO of about 250 miles you would be increasing speed until the atmosphere was thick enough to start aerobraking. I don't have the math to figure a terminal velocity at this point but it seems to me that it would be high enough to cause considerable heating.

Why not just light at minimal throttle and then do the drop? Especially with multi engine, restart capable designs.

Couple of major things to overcome, but it can be done: 1) plane has to have structural integrity and aerodynamics to be able to handle increase in velocity (minimum throttle at altitude is typically around 7-10% of thrust, which even for a 30k engine is ~ 3,000 lbf of additional thrust for the plane to accommodate), 2) plane has to be clear of engine plume and any additional heating caused by the start transient.

Then there's the increased risk if the timing isn't right, since now the high dollar, one or two of a kind carrier (plane) is at risk of a crit 1 failure.

I've seen concepts of vehicles with a release just shortly (less than a second) after engine start is initiated, but those vehicles never made it past the test stage. Problems abound and costs were too high to go into production.

Orbital velocity is too high. So, unless you come up with a non-atmospheric method of braking, basically it will be at the atmospheric limit. That, or you bring your own heat shield while waiting in your vacuum suit.

Thanks for the reply. Orbital velocity is really, and I'm not an aeronautical engineer by any means, is a function of horizontal speed. It's a tangential to the curvature of the Earth. That's why spacecraft have to perform burns 180 degrees out from their flight path in order to slow down in order to deorbit. I guess what I'm asking is at what height will I not need to strap a heat shield to my ass in order to not burn up.

Any, it just depends on your starting velocity, which is then determined by your lauching methods. If you're at LEO heights, but NOT in orbital velocity (0 relative ground velocity), you'll freefall from that height without needing heat shielding.

Not exactly correct. Even assuming that you could cancel your orbital speed and fall straight down (which would require thrust to cancel 17000 mph along the orbital path, plus a thrust vector at 90 degrees from the orbital path to maintain altitude), from a LEO of about 250 miles you would be increasing speed until the atmosphere was thick enough to start aerobraking. I don't have the math to figure a terminal velocity at this point but it seems to me that it would be high enough to cause considerable heating.

LEO altitudes, not orbiting. We're talking sounding rocket trajectories, not orbiting trajectories, so there's a lot less velocity to get rid of.

Let me get this straight: they're offering to launch half the payload of a Pegasus - a 20+ year old system - at half the cost of Pegasus. What exactly is the innovation here, aside from their plane looking cooler than a converted airliner?

Why not just light at minimal throttle and then do the drop? Especially with multi engine, restart capable designs.

Couple of major things to overcome, but it can be done: 1) plane has to have structural integrity and aerodynamics to be able to handle increase in velocity (minimum throttle at altitude is typically around 7-10% of thrust, which even for a 30k engine is ~ 3,000 lbf of additional thrust for the plane to accommodate), 2) plane has to be clear of engine plume and any additional heating caused by the start transient.

Then there's the increased risk if the timing isn't right, since now the high dollar, one or two of a kind carrier (plane) is at risk of a crit 1 failure.

I've seen concepts of vehicles with a release just shortly (less than a second) after engine start is initiated, but those vehicles never made it past the test stage. Problems abound and costs were too high to go into production.

*minor spelling edit..again. I can't spell today.

Let me try one. What if a temporary glider were built around the rocket and towed behind the launch craft. Engines could fire, and then when there is slack in the towline, it could be released, and the glider structure shed. Sure you just lit a missile that's right behind you, but assuming some remote control of the glider, and a long enough tow cable, that shouldn't be an issue.

At least this way if you get an engine failure on the rocket, it can still glide back to earth.

On the 'skydiving' question: the answer partly depends how one defines skydiving. Even at 100000', one needs thermal protection (initally from the cold) and an air supply from a containment suit. Just how elaborate is the 'containment suit' allowed to be before it becomes a 're-entry capsule'? Are glider wings allowed between arms and legs? How big?

What if a temporary glider were built around the rocket and towed behind the launch craft.

Weight. Bulk. Cost.

Quote:

Engines could fire, and then when there is slack in the towline, it could be released, and the glider structure shed.

Yet more things to control, and more things that can fail.

Quote:

Sure you just lit a missile that's right behind you, but assuming some remote control of the glider, and a long enough tow cable, that shouldn't be an issue.

Unless, of course, there are... issues with the control circuits.

Quote:

At least this way if you get an engine failure on the rocket, it can still glide back to earth.

...and smash into little pieces. Unless you also add a landing system... adding more weight, more bulk, more cost, and more failure points.

Even a simple drop is not exactly fool-proof - a few years ago, I came across a story of a Tu-16 launching a KSR-5 cruise missile. A few seconds after the drop, the tail gunner found himself looking at four tons of rocket floating up right in his face - and seconds away from igniting the engine that would boost it to Mach 3+ speed. He barely had the time to alert the pilot, who immediately executed a hard break sideways, and they got away with a scorched lower fuselage. After that incident, the release mechanism was modified to forcibly eject the missile away from the carrier aircraft upon launch.

One other secondary effect of a ground launch is the structure needed. That is, you need more fuel for a ground launch of a rocket and the entire rocket structure has to accommodate this weight and lift off force. Because a plane uses aerodynamic lift, it does not need this weight and structure. So, the rocket launched from altitude needs less fuel and less structure.

On Ars of all places, shouldn't a science article about aerospace use, you know, metric? Not this miles/feet/pounds nonsense?

Sadly, rocket engineers still use both sets of measurments. The Martian Probe that tried to bury itself because of a miscommunicated unit showed this off a few years ago. I think they are trying to convert everything to metic measurments - it just takes time. It would be great if the US would bite the bullet and make the conversion everywhere.

One other secondary effect of a ground launch is the structure needed. That is, you need more fuel for a ground launch of a rocket and the entire rocket structure has to accommodate this weight and lift off force. Because a plane uses aerodynamic lift, it does not need this weight and structure. So, the rocket launched from altitude needs less fuel and less structure.

The fuel and weight savings are minimal, on the order of 2-3%. If you want to use an airplane as a true first stage, it needs to be hypersonic and capable of very high altitudes, and no such platform exists today. The main advantages of air launch, in its current form, is flexibility - you're not restricted to existing launch complex locations, and you're far more flexible with regards to weather at the time of launch. Even with that, launch cost per kg for Pegasus is quite high, and LauncherOne doesn't appear to be bringing it down much ("under $10M" for 500 pounds). By comparison, a Falcon 9 launch costs $27M, and lifts 21000 pounds to LEO.

On Ars of all places, shouldn't a science article about aerospace use, you know, metric? Not this miles/feet/pounds nonsense?

Sadly, rocket engineers still use both sets of measurments. The Martian Probe that tried to bury itself because of a miscommunicated unit showed this off a few years ago. I think they are trying to convert everything to metic measurments - it just takes time. It would be great if the US would bite the bullet and make the conversion everywhere.

Yea, that's incredibly silly IMO. They can put a probe around Mars, but they can't update their units system because "it's too complicated to change". And then they lose said probe. Yay.

On the 'skydiving' question: the answer partly depends how one defines skydiving. Even at 100000', one needs thermal protection (initally from the cold) and an air supply from a containment suit. Just how elaborate is the 'containment suit' allowed to be before it becomes a 're-entry capsule'? Are glider wings allowed between arms and legs? How big?

When I postulated this thought exercise I was thinking of a pressure suit like Joseph Kittinger wore in the sixties when he set the record at 102800'. A small drogue chute used for stability.

.milFox wrote:

sheyingshi wrote:

.milFox wrote:

cdclndc wrote:

.milFox wrote:

LEO altitudes, not orbiting. We're talking sounding rocket trajectories, not orbiting trajectories, so there's a lot less velocity to get rid of.

Well, lets assume you're gone straight up to about the height of the space station, around 230 miles just straight up. Not orbiting. No horizontal velocity to speak of. Using the equation v=sqrt{2gd} and plugging the numbers would indicate that the return to the surface of the earth would result in a velocity of 6027.2 mph (this is negating the atmosphere for simplicity). Now the density of our atmosphere reaches pretty much zero at about 120000' so I'll plug in the numbers from the space station to 120000'. By my back of the envelope calculation I'm getting about 5721 mph. That's pretty fast. Unfortunately information from there is pretty limited. I'm kinda thinking a flame retardant suit over the pressure suit might be in order. Any astrophysicists in the room?

The author is missing some other important benefits. [...]In all, they probably save thirty to forty percent of the fuel on the rocket, and replace it with a lower amount of more efficient and cheaper fuel for an airplane. Looks like a good deal to me.

Sorry, Henrys. Burt Rutan says at most 5%. Most rocket guys would say less, even counting the saved dogleg energy. You need to accelerate to 11 km/sec and change. An extra .1 or .2 km/sec really doesn't put a big dent in that number.

I used altitude instead of delta-v as a more intuitive illustration, but I think my explanation ended up just plain inadequate and misleading. I also left out the very advantageous effect of a bigger nozzle expansion ratio.

Escape velocity only takes place if propulsion is a one-time thing (like firing a cannon). From Wikipedia under 'Escape_velocity': "A vehicle with a propulsion system can continue to gain energy and travel away from the planet, in any direction, at a speed lower than escape velocity so long as it is under propulsion."

Also, escape velocity is lower at high altitudes.

Another way to look at is to to look at Orbital Science's rockets. Their ground launched rockets (Minotaur, Antares, Taurus) are considerably larger than their plane-launched rocket Pegasus. From their web page:"Minotaur I is a four-stage solid fuel space launch vehicle utilizing Minuteman rocket motors for its first and second stages, reusing motors that have been decommissioned as a result of arms reduction treaties. The Minotaur’s third and fourth stages, structures, and payload fairing are common with our highly reliable Pegasus XL rocket."

On Ars of all places, shouldn't a science article about aerospace use, you know, metric? Not this miles/feet/pounds nonsense?

Sadly, rocket engineers still use both sets of measurments. The Martian Probe that tried to bury itself because of a miscommunicated unit showed this off a few years ago. I think they are trying to convert everything to metic measurments - it just takes time. It would be great if the US would bite the bullet and make the conversion everywhere.

One of the major drivers behind not changing to metric is that quite a significant amount of the machine tools that are used to manufacture spacecraft components by U.S. contractors are in imperial units. When it comes to precision machining, the tiny delta between metric and imperial at the smallest unit of measure often matters. The capital investment to convert or replace all the manufacturing equipment and ground support equipment thus far hasn't merited changing.

That, and spacecraft engineering relies heavily on proven 'heritage' techniques, including hardware and software designs that reach back to when imperial unit were the standard... its a lot of inertia to overcome.

Baumgartner when he jumps won't have any significant horizontal velocity. Orbital velocity is somewhere around 17K mph and most of that is a horizontal vector. The vertical velocity will be all from gravity. Re-entry heating from LE orbit occurs mostly by burning off the horizontal component. SpaceShipOne and presumably Two are basically skydiving, getting up to 100km and dragging their tail in the wispy atmosphere and doing mostly a vertical reentry.

Somebody could book a flight on SST and do a DB Cooper and beat Baumgartner's record. Be kind of hard to beat that.

Years ago I remember NASA (probably it was really the Air Force) was toying with the idea that a space-suited astronaut could use a personal heat shield and a solid-fuel retro rocket and do a re-entry from a crippled LEO spacecraft. I think somebody came to their senses and stopped experimentation or they couldn't find anybody stupid enough to try it.